Jefferson Review

"Your Liberty is Our Interest"

Home /  Archives / Search / Links / Quotes / Book Reviews / Advertise /Contact us / Subscribe / Calendar

I had to respond to this guy.  Business First ran my response, below Mr. Sharp’s letter on Friday, December 6. 

On Friday, Nov. 14, Business First ran an editorial in support of Greater Louisville Inc.'s opposition to a local smoking ban.

The editorial criticized smoking ban proponents for citing the effects of secondhand smoke on employees by saying that "some businesses are more dangerous places to work than others." It added that, "By the nature of their job, LG&E linemen face more risk than someone working behind a desk at company headquarters."

That argument is fatally flawed.

While it's true that some jobs are high risk, there's a big difference between those jobs and serving customers at local businesses that subject employees and patrons to the harmful effects of secondhand smoke.

Companies such as LG&E are required by law to minimize the risk associated with high-risk jobs by providing safety training, proper safety equipment and adequate insurance.

If allowing people to smoke is so economically beneficial to business owners, then those same business owners should have no problem forking over the cash to close off smoking areas, install special ventilation equipment and provide hazard pay and additional health insurance for employees who work in the smoking section.

In the absence of these kinds of voluntary safety measures, it's perfectly appropriate for our local government to consider a smoking ban for the greater good.

All businesses must follow some sort of governmental rules and regulations that are in the best interest of their employees and the pubic. A smoking ban is no different.

And, yes, I am aware that "smoking is legal in the United States," but that doesn't mean its use shouldn't be regulated.

After all, owning a gun is legal, but pointing it at a stranger and pulling the trigger is a crime, and cigarette smoke is just as lethal.

Darrell Sharp, Louisville

My response.

I would like to respond to a recent letter in your publication entitled, “Businesses shouldn’t subject employees to secondhand smoke.”

The letter writer suggests that there is a big difference between the risks that LG&E linemen face and those dangers associated with hospitality servers.  Smoke Free Louisville would have us believe otherwise.  The main reason for Smoke Free Louisville’s drive is to protect hospitality workers from “dangerous” second hand smoke. 

While there are thousands of jobs that are more dangerous, Smoke Free Louisville has chosen to protect hospitality servers, many of which fear for their jobs should a smoking ban pass.  Many of the 20,000 signatures on the petitions against a smoking ban were those of hospitality workers.  Smoke Free Louisville has no concern for the “rights” of these workers; their agenda is for the eradication of tobacco.

Had Smoke Free Louisville been that concerned about the health of hospitality workers, they would have used the $88,000 that they received from tobacco settlement money to subsidize air filtration systems in Louisville’s bars and restaurants instead of using it to petition local government.

The writer suggests that bars and restaurants should have no problem “forking over the cash to close off smoking areas, install special ventilation equipment and provide hazard pay and additional health insurance for employees who work in the smoking section.”

First of all, anti smoking groups strongly state that there is no ventilation system that will remove tobacco toxins from the air.  Secondly, as I mentioned earlier, Smoke Free Louisville had the opportunity to help that cause by using tobacco settlement money to create safe smoking environments.  At a cost of $800 per system, for a 1600 square foot facility, Smoke Free Louisville could have purchased 110 ventilation systems.  This solution would have demonstrated true concern toward safe smoking environments for workers and for patrons.  That is not their agenda.

Many bar and restaurant owners are not against installing filtration systems; some have already done so, voluntarily.  However, with Smoke Free Louisville’s assertion that filtration systems won’t work, what’s the point?  They will not accept air filtration systems as an option to a ban.

The letter writer suggests that legislating a smoking ban is for the greater good.  In essence he is saying that putting small restaurants and bars out of business, causing hospitality workers to lose their jobs, reducing the income of many businesses owners causing the family to suffer, and in general, restricting businesses from allowing their patrons to use a legal product on the premises is a fair trade to allow non-smokers to have a smoke free place to eat and drink should they decide to patronize the former smoking optional businesses.  There are already over 300 smoke-free restaurants in Louisville.  What is the problem?  Can Smoke Free Louisville guarantee that non-smokers are going to fill the gap left by smokers that choose to stay home?

Finally, I find his analogy of guns and cigarettes amusing.  Cigarettes are not guns.  People have a choice of going into smoky bars and restaurants; no one is forcing them, at cigarette, to do something that they don’t want to do.  And if a stranger is threatening my family, my property or my life, I will point my gun and I will shoot, probably while holding a cigarette in my mouth.

Terry Gray

President – Forces Kentucky

40214

Weather (Louisville) / Mapquest / Search / White Pages / Business Search / CNN / Dictionary / E-card / MSN